Two honest questions for Bible scholars...

[non sequitur]

I don't see how one can accept that the BoM is not historical and still continue to have have faith in Mormonism. That reconciliation seems like a torturous bit of mental gymnastics. The BoM claims to be a history. JS claimed it was a history. Countless prophets and apostles have also claimed it to be so. That claim is at the very heart of Mormonism. If the BoM is not what it purports to be, then the whole ball of yarn called Mormonism quickly unravels.

I liken your attitude to a guy who has had an autographed Mickey Mantle baseball on his mantle for years, only to discover that it was never really signed by Mickey Mantle. The ball might give him comfort because it has become a fixture in his life, and he might even try to convince himself that the ball has value, but in his heart he'll always know the ball is worthless. If I'm that guy, I'm going to get rid of the ball.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I don't see how one can accept that the BoM is not historical and still continue to have have faith in Mormonism. That reconciliation seems like a torturous bit of mental gymnastics. The BoM claims to be a history. JS claimed it was a history. Countless prophets and apostles have also claimed it to be so. That claim is at the very heart of Mormonism. If the BoM is not what it purports to be, then the whole ball of yarn called Mormonism quickly unravels.

I liken your attitude to a guy who has had an autographed Mickey Mantle baseball on his mantle for years, only to discover that it was never really signed by Mickey Mantle. The ball might give him comfort because it has become a fixture in his life, and he might even try to convince himself that the ball has value, but in his heart he'll always know the ball is worthless. If I'm that guy, I'm going to get rid of the ball.

What you call "mental gymnastics," I call putting faith and reason in dialectic. You seem to think that they need to be dichotomous, but neither serves as well on it's own as it does in conjunction with the other.

For me, the claim at the very heart of Mormonism is that the BoM will lead people to Jesus Christ. Making factual claims about historical objects is not the prerogative of religion, although religious people often feel inclined to advance such claims.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

What you call "mental gymnastics," I call putting faith and reason in dialectic. You seem to think that they need to be dichotomous, but neither serves as well on it's own as it does in conjunction with the other.

For me, the claim at the very heart of Mormonism is that the BoM will lead people to Jesus Christ. Making factual claims about historical objects is not the prerogative of religion, although religious people often feel inclined to advance such claims.

Back when I was active, I always had trouble with the temple reccomend question "Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?". I recognized that the Church was a positive force in my life and that it helped me be a better person, but I was unable to profess a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, mainly because I didn't believe the BoM was authentic.

Is it really possible to believe that the BoM is not historical and simultaneously claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet? That's an honest question, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just curious how you reconcile the apparent contradiction.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Several hundred years later we then have Mormon, reading, pondering and teaching what Nephi wrote, and in-turn making an abridgment.

Abridge: to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents

Compilation: the act of compiling: the compilation of documents.

Could it be that Mormon took Jesus' words to heart...Same with Joseph Smith

3rd Nephi 23
1 And now, behold, I say unto you, that ye ought to search these things. Yea, a commandment I give unto you that ye search these things diligently; for great are the words of Isaiah.
2 For surely he spake as touching all things concerning my people which are of the house of Israel; atherefore it must needs be that he must speak also to the Gentiles.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Back when I was active, I always had trouble with the temple reccomend question "Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?". I recognized that the Church was a positive force in my life and that it helped me be a better person, but I was unable to profess a belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, mainly because I didn't believe the BoM was authentic.

Is it really possible to believe that the BoM is not historical and simultaneously claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet? That's an honest question, and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just curious how you reconcile the apparent contradiction.

I realize that you're asking honest questions, so there's no need to worry about me taking offense.

My understanding of prophets is informed by my studies in dialectical images, and particularly in the works of Walter Benjamin. Prophets disrupt the linearity of the prosaic "present" with the startling force of the poetic "now." It's the force that shatters the mythos of objective human progress, that topples Babel and shakes the great and spacious building. Sometime I'll have to do a post on Benjamin, as there's alot in his "Theses on the Philosophy of History" that are important to my views. Regardless, if you research dialectical philosophy, and particularly its roots in the German Philosophers (but also in psychoanalysis), what I just wrote will make more sense.

You may recall my exchange with SU some months ago about William James and "roots" and "fruits". He is also part of the equation for me.

As an aside, I believe the current TR question is: Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I realize that you're asking honest questions, so there's no need to worry about me taking offense.

My understanding of prophets is informed by my studies in dialectical images, and particularly in the works of Walter Benjamin. Prophets disrupt the linearity of the prosaic "present" with the startling force of the poetic "now." It's the force that shatters the mythos of objective human progress, that topples Babel and shakes the great and spacious building. Sometime I'll have to do a post on Benjamin, as there's alot in his "Theses on the Philosophy of History" that are important to my views. Regardless, if you research dialectical philosophy, and particularly its roots in the German Philosophers (but also in psychoanalysis), what I just wrote will make more sense.

You may recall my exchange with SU some months ago about William James and "roots" and "fruits". He is also part of the equation for me.

As an aside, I believe the current TR question is: Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

I understand what you're saying about prophets, but I get the impression that you're buying something a little bit different than what's being sold to you. I was in that position for a long time, and I had found ways to reconcile my faith, but the more I listened to what I was being told, the more I realized that I was in a different club than the rest of the people I saw every Sunday. Is that a source of discouragement for you, and, if so, how do you deal with it?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I realize that you're asking honest questions, so there's no need to worry about me taking offense.

My understanding of prophets is informed by my studies in dialectical images, and particularly in the works of Walter Benjamin. Prophets disrupt the linearity of the prosaic "present" with the startling force of the poetic "now." It's the force that shatters the mythos of objective human progress, that topples Babel and shakes the great and spacious building. Sometime I'll have to do a post on Benjamin, as there's alot in his "Theses on the Philosophy of History" that are important to my views. Regardless, if you research dialectical philosophy, and particularly its roots in the German Philosophers (but also in psychoanalysis), what I just wrote will make more sense.

You may recall my exchange with SU some months ago about William James and "roots" and "fruits". He is also part of the equation for me.

As an aside, I believe the current TR question is: Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

How does Benjamin's philosophy of material dialecticism relate to the philosophies of Theordor Adorno and Brecht?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I understand what you're saying about prophets, but I get the impression that you're buying something a little bit different than what's being sold to you. I was in that position for a long time, and I had found ways to reconcile my faith, but the more I listened to what I was being told, the more I realized that I was in a different club than the rest of the people I saw every Sunday. Is that a source of discouragement for you, and, if so, how do you deal with it?

I am much better with the "I" believe than the "we" believe, although over time I've learned to appreciate that good people don't always have the drive to ask questions like I do. What I do begrudge is when someone tries to impose his/her views on me in terms of righteousness, and specifically on matters where there is no official Church doctrine or interpretation (I consider it a violation of the famous verse in D&C 121, for one thing). Fortunately, this has so far happened only informally and never in a situation where my worthiness was being scrutinized. Two years ago I mentioned to my Bishop that my beliefs about what a prophet is and isn't were different than much of what my fellow saints espoused. It was a dramatic moment for me and I was quite nervous. My Bishop said something like, "I don't have a definition of prophet in the handbook that I'm supposed to ask you to agree to. I'm glad I don't. You're a faithful home teacher and serve in your calling, and if you think your ideas are sufficiently congruent I'm obliged to agree with you." J. Reuben Clark once said something very similar when Mark E. Pederson wanted to go on something of an orthodoxy witch hunt. He said something like, "You can't kick a man out for holding an opinion." (I can look up the quote if you'd like).

Still, those informal judgments can be frustrating at times and I've found that there is a spiritual reason behind the architecture known as "the foyer." Sometimes I just need to get a little air, and I doubt that I'm alone in this. My calling in the Primary helps alot too, as then I'm subjected to rather less nonsense from adults. Much of this frustration is behind my desires to have a forum for less by-the-book, correlated, and CES approved discussion. Sunstone, Dialogue, CG, my academic work, and most especially my wife help in this regard. It really is a blessing that I've found a kindred soul on these issues.

I'm certain that if there was less of a drive for doctrinal conformity, and more appreciation for doctrinal diversity from Christian-living people, some people wouldn't leave the Church who currently do.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How does Benjamin's philosophy of material dialecticism relate to the philosophies of Theordor Adorno and Brecht?

An excellent question, and one I could write volumes about. Benjamin was friends with Adorno and with Brecht, altough Adorno and Brecht did not get on. The primary tension between Benjamin and Adorno, who respected each other immensely, was in Benjamin's notion of the flaneur and Adorno's notion of the consumer society somnambulist. This comes to head most directly in Benjamin's Arcades project.

Sometime I'll have to do a serious post on this if there's enough interest.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How does Benjamin's philosophy of material dialecticism relate to the philosophies of Theordor Adorno and Brecht?

Sometimes I read posts here and I feel like I stepped into a Monty Python routine.